Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Pierre Gauthier, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Portneuf. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Perhaps this is the proper place for me to make a correction in the statement which I made in answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Graydon) on July 10 with respect to disturbances at Petawawa. At the time I answered my hon. friend I found his question on my desk when I came into my office, and I went immediately to the telephone and got the information from the officers at headquarters. They gave me the information which I immediately gave the house in answer to the question. I now have the proceedings of the court of inquiry and the report of an investigation conducted by the officers of the department whom I directed to be sent to Petawawa, and I very much regret to find that the information I gave the house was not accurate.

I said that at the training centre commanded by Colonel Johnston the only disturbance in recent days had taken place about three weeks ago. I find, in fact, that there had been tw'o disturbances on successive nights; one on June 25 and the other on June 26. The incident on June 25 took place around nine o'clock that evening. A large group of approximately one hundred and fifty men had gathered close beside the canteen and there was some argument between some unidentified persons. I mention that particularly because I stated to my hon. friend that there were only two men involved in each case. The officer tells me that there were only two men involved in the fight, but at the same time I did not have the information that there was a crowd in addition to that. Hebert, a witness, states that he saw a scuffle and noticed a sergeant and a couple of other ranks lying on the ground. None of these has been identified. Another witness, Peters, a coloured man and a boxer, says he saw a few men "pick on" the sergeant. This latter witness did not know what the argument was about but he decided to participate in the scufile in order to help the sergeant, and he got into the fight and says that the crowd was arguing whether he was fighting for the general service or the N.R.M.A., and that he said he was not on 100-321

either side-all he wanted was fair play. Hebert, who had been acting as a regimental policeman, called the provost who intervened. The scuffle stopped almost immediately and the crowd moved off.

About twenty minutes later it appeared that a man named1 Dussault insulted! Hebert, the acting regimental policeman. There had been bad blood between them in the past arising from personal differences. No fight ensued, as friends on both sides stopped them. However, tempers had risen and Dussault incited the soldiers who were still there to get after Hebert; the latter and; two of his friends ran for safety in an office nearby. Most of the crowd followed and the office door was forced open and the upper panel broken. Hebert and his friends escaped by the window. At this time the crowd had increased and there were approximately two hundred men milling around. The regimental sergeant major and some senior non-commissioned officers arrived, ordered the men to proceed to their huts, which they did, and when the orderly officer arrived immediately afterward everything was under control. Hebert, one of the escaping men, reported to the medical inspection room with a lacerated nose. Dussault was the. only man identified in the group which forced the door, and he was disciplined. I may say as a matter of fact that Dussault was just back from embarkation leave. I think he is now overseas. Both Hebert and Dussault were general service men.

The second incident was about nine-thirty the next night. It is substantially as I stated last week. Two men, both general service soldiers, had been doing some drinking and got into an altercation but did not come to blows. A group of about fifteen soldiers got around them, and when the orderly officer ordered .them to break up they did so immediately. A little later a crowd of about fifty had gathered, apparently waiting for something to happen. There was some argument going on but no fight. After the canteen closed there would be probably two hundred' men around. The orderly officer was in the vicinity from nine-thirty onwards. He saw the men in their huts and the lights out. He stayed around until about eleven o'clock and when he left everything was quiet.

These are the incidents at training centre A-l commanded by Colonel Johnston. I had said there was only one disturbance, but as I have just indicated, there were disturbances on two different days. As I mentioned to the house, there had been an incident some time ago at training centre A-2. I said it was

Disturbances at Petawawa Camp

about two mouths ago. As a matter of fact it was on April 9, over three months ago. I said on the tenth that the rumour was that there was a fight between a general service and N.R. M.A. soldier. I find now that what happened was that a general service soldier got into a dispute with another general service soldier as a result of some objection he made to singing in French. He was ejected from the wet canteen by regimental police. It was just closing time, and after the crowdl had left the canteen they gathered outside. There was some shouting and noise which attracted men from the neighbouring huts. A crowd gathered, estimated at about a hundred and fifty men. The regimental sergeant major came on the scene and ordered the men to disperse, which they did. No one was injured, there was no fighting and no property damage.

It should be noted by the house that a crowd of two or three hundred men would not be at all unusual at canteen closing time in a large camp like Petawawa, where there are between nine thousand and ten thousand men.

The officer af Camp Petawawa who gave the information which I gave to the house explains the incompleteness of the telephone information on the ground that he had not then seen the proceedings of the inquiry. I would like to repeat that I received the question of the leader of the opposition only a few minutes before the opening of the house, and in my desire to answer promptly I immediately telephoned my officers here who gave me the information which I forthwith gave the house. This information had been forwarded to headquarters by telephone from Petawawa, and contained nothing showing that any crowd had been involved in the incidents referred to.

I should like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that general service and N.R.M.A. personnel have been training together in probably seventy-five camps and schools all across Canada for over three years. There has been remarkably little in the way of friction. I think both the officers and the men are entitled to great credit for the way they have carried on.

In Petawawa, which is our second largest camp in Canada, there are more differences to be taken account of than in any other camp in the dominion. We can hardly expect that there would not be strained relations at times between N.R M.A. and general service personnel, but that is not by any means the only possible cause for quarrels, especially in camps of that size and where so many differences of various kinds exist. I am not going to minimize these episodes, but on the other

hand I do not think that we should add to the difficulties of loyal and faithful officers and staff who have to deal with men of all sorts and make them soldiers by undue emphasis on incidents like these, which might occur in any camp, especially around canteen closing time. I think the Petawawa camp has made on the whole an excellent reputation for order and for good work, and I am sure that both officers and other ranks want to help to keep it that way. I would ask the house and the country that we try to leave them to do it.

Mr. ORUICKSHANK:

Will the coloured

soldier get a medal?

Mr. RALSTON:

He may get the golden

gloves.

Mr. GRAYDON:

He went to the rescue

of the sergeant, did he not?

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

I noticed a report in the press of a disturbance at Calgary R. C. Camp, and I expect to be asked a question by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) with regard to it. A wire has been sent to Calgary with reference to it. Having this lesson about giving information prematurely I am not going to give my hon. friend any answer because I have not any information other than that which is contained in the newspapers. Just a flash came in on this incident and a request was made for a full report. That will be given in due course.

Mr. POULIOT:

The Canadian Press carries a dispatch that there was an active army-draftee clash involving a hundred and fifty men in Calgary. I would ask the government if they are willing to have this matter investigated by someone from Ottawa and if they will consider the policy of separating the active service personnel from the draftees in the different camps.

Mr. RALSTON:

I have already indicated that I was making inquiries in connection with the matter, and I will make a report as soon as I can.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

May I refer to another question which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me on July 10 with regard to the tragic accident at Mount Bruno. Immediately the accident occurred two things were done. The attorney general of the prov-

Disturbances at Calgary

ince of Quebec was notified; it was indicated to him that a court of inquiry would be held, and he was given the opportunity to have a representative at the court of inquiry. At the same time the coroner was notified. As a matter of fact the coroner did hold a coroner's inquest in respect of the twelve cases in which,, most regrettably, fatalities occurred.

The finding of the coroner's inquest in all twelve cases was as follows:

Concerning the death of

age - years,

domiciled at

; which death happened on the

day of the month of

nineteen hundred

and forty-four at Montreal, a report haying been made to this court, an inquest was held by me on the 8th of July of the said year, and after having heard the relatives of -the deceased,

*the witnesses, and Doctor

who declared as

cause of the death

And then comes the actual injury suffered by the deceased whose name is mentioned in the finding-

I came to the conclusion that the said

died of a violent death; that this death was not imputable to the crime of whomsoever, neither to the negligence of anybody; that no crime accompanied or preceded this death, and there was no necessity to hold an inquest before a jury. In consequence, a verdict of an accidental death was rendered. [DOT]

Pierre Hebert,

Joint Coroner of the District of Montreal.

This is simply the finding of the joint coroner of the district of Montreal.

A full opportunity was given the civil authorities to investigate the matter, and that finding was rendered in all twelve cases. As a matter of fact the findings in four of the cases were forwarded here a few days ago, and I think the remaining eight were received here yesterday.

May I now proceed to the matter of the court of inquiry itself. The attorney general replied on July 7 to the notice we gave him. The reply is as follows:

Your message received re inquiry on death of soldiers accidentally killed at Mount Bruno. Coroner having made an investigation not felt necessary to send representative to attend military court of inquiry.

This is signed by Mr. Cantin, K.C.

The qualifications of the members of the court were these: Major A. T. Stikeman belongs to A.48 basic training centre, artillery, stationed at St. Johns, Quebec. He has had much experience in courts of inquiry during the past two years, and has been eighteen years in commissioned service. Major J. H. Rankin is a permanent force soldier who enlisted in the R.C.O.C. in 1936 and qualified as an ammunition examiner in 1938. He was recommended by the officer commanding

Longue Pointe ordnance depot as being an expert ammunition man, the best available. Captain B. W. A. Allison is attached to A.12 infantry training centre. This officer belongs to the unit concerned. He has had four years' service in the present war and is a graduate in arts of the university of Edinburgh. In civil life he was assistant branch manager of a textile firm. He has had previous experience on courts of inquiry, and is well spoken of.

The court held a number of sittings-I do not know the number of witnesses, but it was a very large number.

I am now in a position to tell the house of the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate accident which took place at Mount Bruno Rifle Ranges, Mount Bruno, Quebec, on July 6, 1944.

The proceedings of the court of inquiry have been received and perused. The information disclosed is substantially as follows:

On July 6, 1944, a detachment of the specialist company, Canadian infantry training centre at Farnham, province of Quebec, went from Farnham to Mount Bruno ranges ta give a demonstration of mortar firing to personnel of Farnham at that time at the battLa drill camp at Mount Bruno.

The demonstration was supervised by an experienced mortar officer and a staff sergeant who had had long experience in firing 3-inch mortar.

The crew were picked men from a group of twenty-seven who had recently completed a qualifying course.

The 3-inch mortar used for the demonstration had been inspected by technical personnel of the army on the evening of the previous day and found in a clean and serviceable condition. The evidence does not indicate any use of the mortar between the time of the inspection and the demonstration.

The ammunition (mortar bombs) had been drawn that morning from the stores of the training centre at Farnham and had been obtained previously through ordnance at Montreal. This ammunition had been inspected in May, 1944, and found serviceable.

At 1120 a.m., a couple of hours before the actual demonstration, which took place at

1.45 p.m., a further check was made of the weapon and ammunition by the detachment commander of the gun crew and the members of the crew.

At the time set for the demonstration personnel under training at the battle drill camp,, consisting of 105 all ranks, were paraded to the site of the 3-inch mortar and took up positions from twenty-five to thirty feet from the mortar. They were placed as a company, in

Disturbances at Calgary

threes, in a semi-circle to allow every man to see what was going on. Four bombs were fired successfully; No. 2 of the gun crew was then seen placing the fifth bomb in the barrel of the mortar, whereupon a terrific explosion was heard and a large red flash was seen as well as black smoke at the site of the gun position. The gun crew were killed outright and a number of those watching the demonstration were wounded.

_ Medical assistance, both military and civilian, was immediately requested by telephone, and a Roman Catholic chaplain from the St. Hubert airport was called. There was a qualified medical orderly with a first aid kit on duty with the troops. Unfortunately he was one of those injured.

In the meantime all able personnel of all ranks administered first aid to the injured and field and shell dressings carried by all of the men as a part of their personal equipment were iused in addition to medical supplies furnished by the range caretaker. The court in its finding commended all ranks for their cool-headedness and intelligent care of the wounded.

Two civilian doctors were on the scene of the accident within twenty minutes after - the explosion but because of the adequate first aid already given found that only the administering of sedatives was required1.

I think I saw at one place where they had readjusted some temporary bandages as well. I do not wish to be tied down to that, but I believe I did see that-that they had rearranged the bandages. Ten minutes later the parish priest of Mount Bruno arrived with a Cistercian Father and administered religious rites to the dying. Ambulances and army medical personnel arrived about forty-five minutes after the blast, and the wounded were driven to various hospitals in Montreal immediately thereafter.

I very much regret to report that the casualty list at present is: 7 killed; 5 died of wounds; one critically injured; 16 severely injured, and 16 injured. One civilian, the caretaker, was injured.

The evidence establishes that the explosion took place in the base of the mortar, and the court so found.

It was impossible to establish conclusively from the few fragments of the bomb which were found that the bomb which exploded was defective. However the evidence indicates that the explosion was not due to any defect in the mortar itself or to improper technique on the part of the crew in loading the mortar. The elimination of these two possible causes of the explosion supports the explanation that

{Mr, Ralston.]

the cause was a defective bomb and the court so found.

All ammunition of this batch is impounded and will be returned for examination by X-ray.

That is the very terse report on the situation. It is all I am able to report at this time, with this addition, that I do wish to express my most profound regrets for the accident, and my deep sympathy to the bereaved families of the victims of this most unfortunate episode.

I can say to the house that as soon as this ammunition is X-rayed, if we find there is anything wrong with it I shall make a further report. As I understand it, this is ammunition of a certain fuse series, and that is all being taken and being retested.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Since the war started have there been any similar incidents or accidents of this kind?

Mr. RALSTON:

I can only say to my hon. friend that I cannot remember any-grenades, sometimes, but not bomb mortars.